Thanks. This is a long-ass, ad-filled article that does not get to the fucking point mentioned in the headline, and I was leaning towards the headline being a sensationalist fabrication - but if 'lying on the stand' was one of the 'enhancements' that earned him extra time, that's some judicial misconduct bullshit indeed.

If he just got extra time for not pleading guilty, that's normal (but whether or not it should be normal is another question). Plea deals have been a thing forever. If the judge was just bitching about him 'lying', that's normal too - judges love to use their bench as a soapbox and lecture people.

But if he specifically got extra time for taking the stand in his defense and saying things that were later held to be false, that's pure bullshit and I hope the guy gets to appeal.

Seriously though, fuck this article. If you assert something in the headline, back it up unambiguously and back it up early. If you bury it at the end of a way-too-long article to get readers to scroll through all your ads, your publication is trash.